Donald Trump

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Pick one:
1. marriage is a religious sacrament, and as such should not be recognized by the government at all
2. marriage - as recognized by the government - is not a religious sacrament, but a secular civil union to which all should have equal rights

Personally, I lean towards #1. I don't think being married should be recognized by the government at all. While I was in the Army I felt tremendous pressure to get married (they literally pay you more, a lot more, if you do) and even in regular civilian life you get sweet tax breaks. I can understand tax breaks for having children, but the incentive to get married feels very creepy socially conservative to me.

The good news for you would be, if government took their hands off of marriage completely, then each congregation would be free to define it however they so choose. Of course, the next congregation over could define it however they choose, so I guess no matter what you're going to just have to learn to cope with grown men holding each other's hands.

While that sentiment is nice in abstract - reality - handling property issues in a relationship, medical issues, custody etc, would prove problematic. The incentives to get parents to stick together for as long as possible and have children, are financially sound for a society.

You might be interested to read how Russia's experiment to get rid of marriage worked out.

History is like scientific experiments that have already been done. We don't need to go back and test whether depriving people of Vitamin C might cause scurvy and be a bad idea, and we don't need to redo failed societal programs of the past.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

comm_il_vec wrote:

It solves a lot. People want to make money. People want to spend money. Capitalism affords them an easy way to do so. Oh, a business doesn't want to serve you? There's always another that would gladly take your money.

With LGBT people, it could not hurt your pocket to deny services. They are few. Again, capitalism is not magical. Sometimes, it just fails to provide alternatives, specially in the short run.

I had to smile at this one. Not because it is true, but because it is very much the opposite case. As someone who has spent way too much time in business (it can jade your way of thinking) it is readily apparent that businesses who put out a negative vibe lose a LOT of money. It doesn't matter what causes the impression of that bad vibe, only the customers' perceptions matter.

Take a look at the spending power of couples that generally don't have children. Now consider how many non straight couples have children. Now look at some articles of the spending power of various parts of the LGBT community.

People can and do fill the gap very readily because there is LOTS of money to be made. Want to make a nice six digit income? Find a consumer niche that is being neglected. They will thank you with their pocket books, and you can thumb your nose at the naysayers as you head to your fancy home in your fancy car.

On the legalistic side of things in the US, you have the explicit wording of the 1st Amendment being pitted against a vapid interpretation of the 14th amendment.

The same sort of offensive discrimination against the customer because of their orientation is being promulgated by the law against the person making the cake.

It may seem abstract now, but it won't when the government chip in someone's head gives them a shock because they were thinking the wrong thoughts. That is where we are headed.

Forty years from now, a participant on the PoE Forum wouldn't get "Edited by Support" they would get "Recieved a punitive shock of 1.2 millivolts to the Thalamus and a five second 30hz retraining signal to the hypothalamus. Further infractions of having thought violations of the TOS will result in a one month suspension of the user's cerebral cortex."

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

comm_il_vec wrote:

Separation of church and state was to keep the state out of our religion, not the other way around.

You cannot make a country for many beliefs when some override the rest.

Yeah, like if someone comes into my cake shop and wants me to make a cake that says "I hate XXX people (insert racial slur that you find most offensive here) and a big confederate flag, than I should have to make that cake whether it violates my beliefs or not.

The overriding is exactly what the cake makers are complaining about. Think of it this way - if the Westboro Baptist Church members started playing PoE and said they wanted to see KKK hood MTXs, and since the game already has crucifixes (decorate your hideout with them no less!) they should be allowed to express their own feelings of hate. Nevermind that GGG might find KKK hoods offensive, it isn't within their rights to determine what is allowed and not allowed.

If I had a time machine, I would let you go back a couple dozen years and see the hypocrisy for yourself (not your hypocrisy, but that of the groups causing all the fuss). They make Hillary Clinton look like an honest woman, and Bill Clinton a celibate.

"

LostForm wrote:

also, being an officiate of a wedding is very different than baking a cake, or even catering (and having to set up and break down) for a wedding. (this is even demonstrated by law)

This is also in the process of changing, with the military leading the way by purging chaplains who aren't enthusiastic enough about perform ceremonies they object to.

It's too early to say if we are headed for a Joe Haldeman Forever War styled society or not, but the good news is the Chinese are forging ahead in Cloning

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-human-cloning-chinese-characteristics.html

When we are all identical, down to our DNA and training, we won't have anything to discriminate about!

Will we all play Scion, or Duelist or ...?

The Bernster so smooth... he's the real deal.



(sry for disturbing serious discussions)

"

Xavderion wrote:

The Bernster so smooth... he's the real deal.



(sry for disturbing serious discussions)

He's got consistency going for him, I'll say that. None of this finger in the wind, what position am I supposed to take today nonsense like the other two front runners. Unless Hillary makes an even bigger gaffe and loses NY, I don't know if Bernie can pull it off though.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

While that sentiment is nice in abstract - reality - handling property issues in a relationship, medical issues, custody etc, would prove problematic.

I'm divorced with three kids, buddy; trust me, custody issues are still worked out, and property issues aren't worked out at all until you get a divorce. Medical, to me, seems like the type of thing you could fix with a special power of attorney.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The incentives to get parents to stick together for as long as possible and have children, are financially sound for a society.

If by stick together you mean remain married, then that's one hell of a statement.

Meanwhile, while the circus plays in the Big Top, out back of the tent, the man with the three cups is playing with YOUR money:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ_-l2D9b98

Mike Maloney is a smart guy. When he starts to swear in his videos, you know something's up!
=@[.]@=

mhmm, so from that video, I can clearly see rolling back regulations on bankers using tax payer money in risky derivative diving is clearly a good idea, and we should power more paul ryan repubs into the driving seat so they can really drive open that exploitation (and complete loss) of our money!!

"

DalaiLama wrote:

I had to smile at this one. Not because it is true, but because it is very much the opposite case. As someone who has spent way too much time in business (it can jade your way of thinking) it is readily apparent that businesses who put out a negative vibe lose a LOT of money. It doesn't matter what causes the impression of that bad vibe, only the customers' perceptions matter.

It's somewhat a subjective argument, and I wonder if it even applies to some place that it's sunk in negativity anyway (think a shitty town in the middle of nowhere, or a place full of likeminded people; in those places a choice doesn't exist). US has a history of screwing sistematically over groups of people (like segregation), so I wouldn't even be that sure.

You may be right, but it requires a higher standard of proof if you are going to say discrimination is tolerable because the market will punish that people.

Also, not all the childless couples have money, so it would guarantee rights for people above some level of income, but not for the rest.

Market failures are tricky to study and controversial, for sure.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Yeah, like if someone comes into my cake shop and wants me to make a cake that says "I hate XXX people (insert racial slur that you find most offensive here) and a big confederate flag, than I should have to make that cake whether it violates my beliefs or not.

The overriding is exactly what the cake makers are complaining about. Think of it this way - if the Westboro Baptist Church members started playing PoE and said they wanted to see KKK hood MTXs, and since the game already has crucifixes (decorate your hideout with them no less!) they should be allowed to express their own feelings of hate. Nevermind that GGG might find KKK hoods offensive, it isn't within their rights to determine what is allowed and not allowed.

If I had a time machine, I would let you go back a couple dozen years and see the hypocrisy for yourself (not your hypocrisy, but that of the groups causing all the fuss). They make Hillary Clinton look like an honest woman, and Bill Clinton a celibate.

That's a slipery slope argument. Just because you force someone, it doesn't mean you'll end forcing them in all situations. Just because you enforce non discrimination you won't end enforcing someone to help racists. If one is going to accept sometimes there is a need for coercion, you need a really high standard to allow it (you can argue if that's the case in the cake situation, of course).

There are two beliefs at play here: the people making wedding cakes that feel they shouldn't serve a homosexual couple (and no, giving a cake doesn't mean some type of aproval, it's just bussiness), and the couple feeling they shouldn't be treated differently because of what they are. Which one has priority? In the racism situation, it's obvious we treat as inferior the discriminatory, unsound belief.

In a secular society, sometimes there is a need to make choices about what beliefs respect or not. It should be more evident with religions like Islam, rather than Christianism. If you think society should be modeled around a religion (read: a belief overriding the rest), you'd disagree, of course.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

This is also in the process of changing, with the military leading the way by purging chaplains who aren't enthusiastic enough about perform ceremonies they object to.

Question: those chaplains work for the government? Because it makes a world of difference. Forcing a private religious entity is one thing, but enforcing non discrimination at government level is another one. A government by design should be for everyone.